Sustainability Indicators to MSW Treatment Assessment: The Rio de Janeiro Case Study

Júlia P. Oliveira (), Fernando L. P. Pessoa, Ana Mehl, Flávia C. Alves and Argimiro R. Secchi
Additional contact information
Júlia P. Oliveira: Programa de Pós-Graduação em Engenharia de Processos Químicos e Bioquímicos (EPQB), Escola de Química, Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro 21941-909, Brazil
Fernando L. P. Pessoa: Chemical Engineering, University Center SENAI CIMATEC, Salvador 41650-010, Brazil
Ana Mehl: Escola de Química, Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro 21941-909, Brazil
Flávia C. Alves: Programa de Pós-Graduação em Engenharia de Processos Químicos e Bioquímicos (EPQB), Escola de Química, Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro 21941-909, Brazil
Argimiro R. Secchi: Programa de Pós-Graduação em Engenharia de Processos Químicos e Bioquímicos (EPQB), Escola de Química, Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro 21941-909, Brazil

Sustainability, 2024, vol. 16, issue 17, 1-16

Abstract: The Brazilian Policy foresees the waste management hierarchy, according to which energy reuse from waste is preferred to final disposal. However, less than 0.2% of the country’s waste goes to energy production. This paper proposes sustainability indicators to support the decision to choose the best process to treat municipal solid waste (MSW) through bioenergy generation technologies. Then, we conduct a case study for Rio de Janeiro. Incineration and gasification were not economically feasible—despite TRL 9 and 8. However, the projects presented a null net present value by increasing the gate fee to 94.69 and 255.39 USD/ton of MSW, respectively. The social indicators (job creation, salary increase with the absorption of waste pickers, population served, reduction in MSW sent to landfill) did not indicate the best technology. The results of the environmental indicators for incineration and gasification were, respectively, 0.45 and 0.37 t CO 2eq /t MSW for GWP, 1.49 and 1.23 MWh/t MSW for energy intensity, 1.24 and 6.14 m 3 /t MSW for water intensity, 39.3 and 27.9 m 2 /t MSW for land use and 0.135 and 0.088 t SO 2eq /t MSW for acidification. Gasification presented better results on 60% of the environmental indicators. However, incineration scored better in the important ones, water and energy intensities, in addition to the technical–economic aspect.

Keywords: municipal solid waste; waste-to-energy; sustainability tripod; bioenergy (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: O13 Q Q0 Q2 Q3 Q5 Q56 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2024
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/16/17/7445/pdf (application/pdf)
https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/16/17/7445/ (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:16:y:2024:i:17:p:7445-:d:1466207

Access Statistics for this article

Sustainability is currently edited by Ms. Alexandra Wu

More articles in Sustainability from MDPI
Bibliographic data for series maintained by MDPI Indexing Manager ().